From #1 to #32

[Porous Five Hole]

From Sabres Live yesterday:

Last year the Sabres were #1 in this category and this year they are #32. 

Care to guess what stat this is?

Power play to penalty kill time differential.

Brian Duff said, "They earned power plays last year with their pace, with their passing, with their ability to threaten teams offensively. It's not there and conversely the opposite is happening. They're not drawing penalties and taking too many penalties."

My conclusion: The pace isn't there this year. The Sabres have a specific focus on defense relative to last year and it has not been worth the trade off. 

[SDS]

After 16 games, we have more points this year than last year.
 

[Archie Lee]

There is nothing about structurally sound defensive hockey that equates to playing without pace or intensity. Perhaps these are growing pains as we learn we can do both. 

[Curt]

4 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

There is nothing about structurally sound defensive hockey that equates to playing without pace or intensity. Perhaps these are growing pains as we learn we can do both. 

I think last year they did a lot more of jumping out of the defensive zone early in order to generate offense off the rush.  That’s great for creating scoring chances, but it also puts you in big trouble if you turn it over in the neutral zone.  They come right back the other way, fast.

I think they haven’t done that as much this year.  They have been more likely to go back deep in the defensive zone to help the D, rather than try to get in position to blow the zone early.

This certainly doesn’t mean they can’t play with pace or intensity.  There will be less rush offense though.

My guess would be that you are right about growing pains.  I think they are being coached to play a more defensive style where they focus on getting back deep in the defensive zone, and they are still adjusting to that new style.  I think they need to find a balance and learn when to pick their spots to generate rush offense.  

[PerreaultForever]

44 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

From Sabres Live yesterday:

Last year the Sabres were #1 in this category and this year they are #32. 

Care to guess what stat this is?

Power play to penalty kill time differential.

Brian Duff said, "They earned power plays last year with their pace, with their passing, with their ability to threaten teams offensively. It's not there and conversely the opposite is happening. They're not drawing penalties and taking too many penalties."

My conclusion: The pace isn't there this year. The Sabres have a specific focus on defense relative to last year and it has not been worth the trade off. 

Where is the evidence of the bolded part? I certainly have not seen it. 

[Porous Five Hole]

8 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Where is the evidence of the bolded part? I certainly have not seen it. 

The goals against relative to the same point last year are lower. 

[Porous Five Hole]

49 minutes ago, SDS said:

After 16 games, we have more points this year than last year.
 

True. But the point Duffer made is valid. Also, the points per game pace last year relative to this year isn’t indicative of anything.  Neither are proving to be a playoff team (I realize it is still early).  
 

This team’s offensive pace is not wreaking the same havoc. My conclusion was that playing a more defensively measured game isn’t working. 

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, Porous Five Hole said:

My conclusion: The pace isn't there this year. The Sabres have a specific focus on defense relative to last year and it has not been worth the trade off. 

It may be too early to draw the conclusion.  Last year when we were upset about how loosy-goosy they were defensively, Donny G. said they were focusing on offense.  Now they're focusing on defense.  If at some point (SOON I hope) Donny Meatballs might turn on both hemispheres so to speak to get a balanced attack.  I hope.  SOON.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Porous Five Hole said:

The goals against relative to the same point last year are lower. 

That does NOT mean we are playing better D. It can simply mean opposing teams are playing more defensively against us. 

Also, it is a copycat league and there is more defensive hockey all over because of Florida vs. Vegas in the final. Quite a few teams playing tighter and more disciplined hockey than last year. The paradigm has shifted back a little. 

[Curt]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

That does NOT mean we are playing better D. It can simply mean opposing teams are playing more defensively against us. 

Also, it is a copycat league and there is more defensive hockey all over because of Florida vs. Vegas in the final. Quite a few teams playing tighter and more disciplined hockey than last year. The paradigm has shifted back a little. 

This is actually not true.

At least any differences in playing style league wide have not resulted in a decrease in shots or goals per game.

[Archie Lee]

It’s a valid concern. If it were easy to coach up a D-structure the way coaches such as Montgomery and Cassidy do, then every coach would do it. When Bylsma was our coach, they tried to play a sound defensive game. They always seemed to look passive though. Yet, there is nothing passive about playing good defence. 

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, Curt said:

This is actually not true.

At least any differences in playing style league wide have not resulted in a decrease in shots or goals per game.

Those two things don't directly correlate either. 

Did you know that incidences of rape have a direct correlation to ice skate sales? True fact. Stats are a funny funny thing. 

[Taro T]

9 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

It’s a valid concern. If it were easy to coach up a D-structure the way coaches such as Montgomery and Cassidy do, then every coach would do it. When Bylsma was our coach, they tried to play a sound defensive game. They always seemed to look passive though. Yet, there is nothing passive about playing good defence. 

A big part of the problem under Bylsma, besides still having a general lack of talent, was that Goober had about 8 white boards worth of stuff for the players to be thinking about every game.  Give them general structures and plans for how to breakout, forecheck, or defend but don't mire them down with details.  The game is too fast to have players "thinking" on the ice. 

Having to think slows reaction and make things seem passive.  (Even worse than they might actually be.)

[PerreaultForever]

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

A big part of the problem under Bylsma, besides still having a general lack of talent, was that Goober had about 8 white boards worth of stuff for the players to be thinking about every game.  Give them general structures and plans for how to breakout, forecheck, or defend but don't mire them down with details.  The game is too fast to have players "thinking" on the ice. 

Having to think slows reaction and make things seem passive.  (Even worse than they might actually be.)

idk, seemed to work out for Cassidy. Depends on the players I think and how well you teach the system(s). 

This sort of alludes to the old Risto is dumb argument and I think we had an is Dahlin dumb one as well. Anyway, you don't succeed by just going out and playing free. There has to be a system and in some cases it is fairly complex and requires time to learn. They should have a system as a mirror version in Rochester as well. 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

idk, seemed to work out for Cassidy. Depends on the players I think and how well you teach the system(s). 

This sort of alludes to the old Risto is dumb argument and I think we had an is Dahlin dumb one as well. Anyway, you don't succeed by just going out and playing free. There has to be a system and in some cases it is fairly complex and requires time to learn. They should have a system as a mirror version in Rochester as well. 

The system CAN be complex.  But it needs to become second nature to them.  There can't be literally 8 white boards worth of info that the players are supposed to be thinking about when they're on the ice for their 45 or so seconds.  If there's 8 boards worth of keys that the players need to be THINKING about, they can't be anywhere close to their best.

There's a reason that teams have their farm clubs run the same system that the parent team runs (regardless of whether the personnel are necessarily right for the system being run); it's so that the players that get called up can just hit the ice already knowing what's expected of them and how they're to read plays and more importantly,  how their teammates will be reading the plays.

 

[Thorner]

18 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

True. But the point Duffer made is valid. Also, the points per game pace last year relative to this year isn’t indicative of anything.  Neither are proving to be a playoff team (I realize it is still early).  
 

This team’s offensive pace is not wreaking the same havoc. My conclusion was that playing a more defensively measured game isn’t working. 

The Sabres points per game pace is less than last year. This isn’t golf, where improving over schedule (or course) fragments 1, 2 and 3 from last season (or round) means improvement: the team improved it’s pace over the course of last season and now we are back to trending for less. I think fans hoped the improvement would carry over. Nothing really to suggest the Sabres are designed to improve game over game relative to other teams in a match of last year’s trend line. 

3 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Those two things don't directly correlate either. 

Did you know that incidences of rape have a direct correlation to ice skate sales? True fact. Stats are a funny funny thing. 

This is flippant at best 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Thorny

[Curt]

4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Those two things don't directly correlate either. 

Did you know that incidences of rape have a direct correlation to ice skate sales? True fact. Stats are a funny funny thing. 

Are you asserting that a team’s playing style, be it offensive or defensive, has no correlation with the number of shots/goals that occur in their games?

It’s a bold position.  You may believe it, but you are going to need to provide some evidence to convince me.  As of right now, I’m going to reject your comment as incorrect.

[HOUSE]

I dont think number 32 is very good

[Thorner]

I feel like I’ve seen that ^ post “new” like 3 times lol 

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, Taro T said:

The system CAN be complex.  But it needs to become second nature to them.  There can't be literally 8 white boards worth of info that the players are supposed to be thinking about when they're on the ice for their 45 or so seconds.  If there's 8 boards worth of keys that the players need to be THINKING about, they can't be anywhere close to their best.

There's a reason that teams have their farm clubs run the same system that the parent team runs (regardless of whether the personnel are necessarily right for the system being run); it's so that the players that get called up can just hit the ice already knowing what's expected of them and how they're to read plays and more importantly,  how their teammates will be reading the plays.

 

That is exactly what I meant about farm teams but that's also why most of them teach defense at the AHL level. 

As for the first part, yes, that's why what we do is backwards as I've said repeatedly. You can't add a (complex) defensive system easily on top of a wide open offensive system. You start with simple basics and when they can cover for each other, get in lanes, block shots, etc etc then you impose an offensive game on top of that. If the defensive foundation is in place first you don't need the white boards when you add a wrinkle for a specific opponent. 

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, Curt said:

Are you asserting that a team’s playing style, be it offensive or defensive, has no correlation with the number of shots/goals that occur in their games?

It’s a bold position.  You may believe it, but you are going to need to provide some evidence to convince me.  As of right now, I’m going to reject your comment as incorrect.

No, I am saying some teams let you play the way you want to play, some teams play the same style, and some teams DON'T let you play the way you want to. We have been abysmal against teams that do not let us play the way we want to (like Boston). I think the scouting reports from last year have been studied more that's all. I'm sure if we stay near the bottom we will once again run into some teams taking us lightly and we will do well in those games. This has gone on for years. 

The Sabres have never reached a point in this decade plus where they DICTATE the way games are played. 

[Taro T]

11 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

That is exactly what I meant about farm teams but that's also why most of them teach defense at the AHL level. 

As for the first part, yes, that's why what we do is backwards as I've said repeatedly. You can't add a (complex) defensive system easily on top of a wide open offensive system. You start with simple basics and when they can cover for each other, get in lanes, block shots, etc etc then you impose an offensive game on top of that. If the defensive foundation is in place first you don't need the white boards when you add a wrinkle for a specific opponent. 

Samuelsson letting the Jet skate past him like it was a Sunday afternoon free skate session on the 2nd goal had nothing to do with not understanding a defensive system (complex or simple).   It was simply a careless lack of awareness.

Power dipping out of the way of the floater heading towards his shoulder had nothing to do with not understanding a defensive system.  

They both were lazy plays.  Not sure why they gave up the breakaway at the end of the 1st, didn't rewatch how Connor got cleanly away, know Dahlin was the chaser; but that needs to be better too.  Comrie bailed the brain fart out that time.

Presuming Jokiharju is healthy tomorrow, would seriously consider running with Dahlin-Jokiharju (though personally hate that pairing, even more than Power-Jokiharju), R Johnson-Samuelsson, Power-E Johnson.  Give them some accountability and also more importantly, give Power the opportunity to have a solid defensive D-man as his partner.    Power settling down, especially as they continue to ask him to do more, would help them tremendously.  Once he seems comfortable out there again, they go back to the pairings Granato would prefer to run.

(Would make similar changes to the PP units as well, bumping at least 1 guy off the top unit and another off the 2nd unit - pretty easy to guess who they are.  But that's a subject for a different thread.)

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

Samuelsson letting the Jet skate past him like it was a Sunday afternoon free skate session on the 2nd goal had nothing to do with not understanding a defensive system (complex or simple).   It was simply a careless lack of awareness.

Power dipping out of the way of the floater heading towards his shoulder had nothing to do with not understanding a defensive system.  

They both were lazy plays.  Not sure why they gave up the breakaway at the end of the 1st, didn't rewatch how Connor got cleanly away, know Dahlin was the chaser; but that needs to be better too.  Comrie bailed the brain fart out that time.

Presuming Jokiharju is healthy tomorrow, would seriously consider running with Dahlin-Jokiharju (though personally hate that pairing, even more than Power-Jokiharju), R Johnson-Samuelsson, Power-E Johnson.  Give them some accountability and also more importantly, give Power the opportunity to have a solid defensive D-man as his partner.    Power settling down, especially as they continue to ask him to do more, would help them tremendously.  Once he seems comfortable out there again, they go back to the pairings Granato would prefer to run.

(Would make similar changes to the PP units as well, bumping at least 1 guy off the top unit and another off the 2nd unit - pretty easy to guess who they are.  But that's a subject for a different thread.)

Yes, that's definitely true, but it all goes hand in hand imo. The way the team is built, the way it plays, the way it's coached, the expectations, the lack of accountability, the incredibly low bar this organization sets. We have, and we continue to, coddle these young guys and talk about development but we do not set a standard and an expectation. We are all too often lazy as you say. We make lazy plays. There are no consequences for that and so it continues. 

It's all connected.